FRANK HEINZ
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2025-10-08
No. 2025-1120
Miller, J., Emas, J., Bokor, J., James, Judge
2025 FL 8783 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2025)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

A claim that a sentence is illegal based on the retroactive application of Apprendi and Erlinger fails on preservation grounds when not properly preserved at trial.

Headnotes

[1] A claim that a sentence is illegal based on retroactive application of constitutional sentencing principles must be properly preserved at trial to be reviewable on appeal…

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Frank Heinz filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 3.800, arguing that his sentence violated princi…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Preservation Of Error Illegal Sentence Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Bokor

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 8, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1120 Lower Tribunal No. F90-45486A ________________

Frank Heinz, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Zachary James, Judge.

Frank Heinz, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

MILLER, J.

2

Frank Heinz seeks review of an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 3.800. Distilled to its essence, his claim below rested upon the retroactive application of Apprendi1 and its progeny, including Erlinger.2

Affirmed.

Footnotes
1 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 2 Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024).
2 Having reviewed the trial court’s thorough and well-reasoned order, we agree the claim fails, at a minimum, on preservation grounds. We therefore decline to address the other substantive arguments raised below and in this proceeding.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw